posted at 12:15 pm on December 29, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Two polls released today show Barack Obama in serious trouble for re-election. Rasmussen has polled Obama head-to-head against various Republican candidates most of the year, and in today’s matchup against Mitt Romney, Obama falls behind among likely voters to the widest margin yet:

Mitt Romney has now jumped to his biggest lead ever over President Obama in a hypothetical Election 2012 matchup. It’s also the biggest lead a named Republican candidate has held over the incumbent in Rasmussen Reports surveying to date.The latest national telephone survey finds that 45% of Likely U.S. Voters favor the former Massachusetts governor, while 39% prefer the president. Ten percent (10%) like some other candidate in the race, and six percent (6%) are undecided.

A week ago, Romney trailed Obama 44% to 41%.The week before that, he held a slight 43% to 42% edge over the president. The two candidates have been essentially tied in regular surveys since January, but Romney remains the only GOP hopeful to lead Obama in more than one survey. Despite Romney’s current six-point lead, his latest level of support is in line with the 38% to 45% he has earned in matchups with the president this year. However, Obama’s 39% is a new low: Prior to this survey, his support has ranged from 40% to 46% in matchups with Romney.

It’s Obama’s number that is more significant in these early head-to-head matchups. Republicans are still vigorously contesting a primary, which means Republicans haven’t united behind a candidate in the way Democrats are already lined up behind Obama. These head to head matchups will only truly be on an equal basis after the nomination has been wrapped up by someone, whether that’s Romney or another Republican candidate. An incumbent who can’t break 40% in a poll, especially at this stage of the race, is an incumbent in deep, deep trouble.

The internals of this poll show how. Obama is losing independents 45/29, while party loyalty on both sides is pretty stable; Romney gets 79/8 among Republicans, while Obama gets 80/11 among Democrats. Obama carries the under-$20K demographic and the two demographics above $75K, but only within the margin of error, while Romney wins the three middle-class income demos, two by double digits. But the big eye-opener is Romney’s six-point lead among women [see update II], which would be the kiss of death indeed in a general election for any Democrat, Obama included.

Why does Romney score so well against Obama now? A new Gallup poll might explain the shift:

A USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to rate their own ideology — and the ideology of the eight major presidential candidates — on a 5-point scale with 1 being very liberal and 5 being very conservative. Americans’ mean score on this scale is 3.3, meaning the average American is slightly to the right of center ideologically. Huntsman’s score matches that at 3.3, but that mean rating excludes the 45% of Americans who did not have an opinion of Huntsman. Of the better known candidates, Romney’s and Paul’s 3.5 scores are closest to the average American’s ideology.

I’m a little skeptical of a poll that puts Ron Paul in the mainstream of American politics, but that’s what Gallup finds — at least for now, while Paul gets a late vetting in the primaries. The median ideology rating for Americans is a 3.3 on their scale, and Obama scores a 2.3, which is actually further to the Left than Michele Bachmann is to the Right at 4.0.

It’s safe to say that the conservative 42% of the electorate won’t be casting votes for Barack Obama in his re-election bid, and Romney has a closer affinity to the 37% in the middle than Obama does. That leaves Obama with the liberal 19% and a reduced draw on the moderates, which split 44/40 in the Rasmussen poll for Obama, not nearly enough for him to prevail.

Update II: I misread the columns in the internals. Romney trails by six points among women, 40/46, not leads among them. My apologies.

Update III: Rasmussen informs me that the D/R/I in this sample is 33/34/33, which is very close to the 35/35/29 from the midterms. If anything, it might oversample independents just a bit, but otherwise looks pretty solid.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

In retrospect. It’s grave-robbing. The 1980 version of the Mittbot was no doubt a Bush or Anderson supporter in 1980.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:38 PM

The term Voodoo Economics wasn’t coined by a Democrat. It was coined by George HW Bush. RINOs love to attack conservatives in the primary. But when it comes time for the general, it’s hands off, genteel electioneering. Nary a mean thing to be said about the Democrat. In 1980, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012. The same story.

That’s because he was blocked every time he tried. He did proposed cutting the MA’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0% – a measure that the voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the state legislature in 2002. So,it’s not that he didn’t try. When the MA legislature refused to budge, Romney proposed the same tax cut in 2005 and again in 2006 with no success. And you forgot to mention that he was successful when he took on his state legislature for imposing a retroactive tax on capital gains earnings. After what was considered locally a bloody fight, he succeeded in passing a bill preventing the capital gains tax from being applied retroactively, resulting in a rebate of $275 million for capital gains taxes collected in 2002. Oh, and he also signed legislation that provided property tax relief to seniors in 2005.

Yes, we realize that Romney and Obama are a pair of crap sandwiches. Nice to see you recognize that. Odd that you would still argue with us about how much tastier the first one is than the second.

Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM

They know deep down that Romney = McCain. But they’ve so invested in Romney that they can’t let go. They’ve been told for 5-6 years that Romney is the man who will solve all the world’s ills. He is electable. He is moderate. He can walk on water. Like any cult, it’s hard to walk away even when you wake up one day and realize it’s all BS.

Absolutely agree. And didn’t COD lead Coons in the polling before the non-stop trashing from her own side? Now we’re all supposed to be good team players. It was all predictable. Most of us here were in fact predicting it.

That’s because he was blocked every time he tried. He did proposed cutting the MA’s income tax rate from 5.3% to 5.0% – a measure that the voters had approved in a 2000 referendum, but was blocked by the state legislature in 2002. So,it’s not that he didn’t try.

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 5:42 PM

Awwww, isn’t that sweet. He tried. Well that’s that. Where do I get my Romney 2012 bumper sticker.

a raging liberal? nonsense, your hyperbolic use of terms verge on the ridiculous. nobody said he was a raging liberal, but a moderate he was indeed, in the sense that he was a unifier, and not a polarizing figure. But he was a moderate. suffice to take a look at his immigratin policies (or the lack of it thereof :-) and you know he wasn’t the extreme/tea party/intransigent sort of a conservative.

So he’s ineffectual, but nevertheless signed the health care bill into law in front of a beaming Ted Kennedy.

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:45 PM

He reminds me of one of my dogs. He pretends to be hard of hearing. I tell him to sit, stay, nothing. He looks at me like he has no clue what I’m saying.

But then in passing conversation I’ll say the word food or the word walk. And from across the room the dog will come running over to me wagging his tail and jumping on me.

That’s Romney. He just couldn’t get those tax cuts passed. He tried and tried, but gosh darn it just couldn’t do it. But when it came to a state takeover of health care, no problem, he got that bill passed in the legislature ASAP and signed.

a raging liberal? nonsense, your hyperbolic use of terms verge on the ridiculous. nobody said he was a raging liberal, but a moderate he was indeed, in the sense that he was a unifier, and not a polarizing figure. But he was a moderate..

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 5:49 PM

ROFL…Reagan was a moderate and not polarizing. Before you know it, FDR’s going to be a conservative.

He is his own man with a track record of success both in and out of government.

MJBrutus on December 29, 2011 at 5:44 PM

So what is he, something like 7-22 in electoral politics? LOL

ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:46 PM

According to Jonathan Last, Romney faced the voters 22 times. He won only five times and lost 17 times. That’s a 29% success rate. Weren’t the Perry supporters telling us that Perry has never lost an election? But now Romney is the only electable one left? But Rasmussen puts out a poll and suddenly Romney is unstoppable? Yes, I’m sure sphincters are puckering in the White House right now.

ROFL…Reagan was a moderate and not polarizing.
ddrintn on December 29, 2011 at 5:51 PM

remind me again what was that that he signed in 1986, the immigration reform bill, and how many illegal immigrants got amnesty under Reagan? yeah, I thought so, about 1.7 milion… not exactly a very conservative record, is it!

So Romney tried to lower taxes. He failed miserably on several occasions as was noted by jimver. Well OK he tried. But failed nonetheless.

And when he becomes president the same failure of a governor will win the battle with Pelosi and Reid and the MSM? This is the guy who will taxes? This is the guy who will reform Social Security?

He couldn’t get a state income tax lowered from 5.3% to 5.0% and yet he’s going to reform the federal government?

Is this what I’m supposed to believe?

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:47 PM

Try not to be so angry, Ed. (not Morrissey)

Whatever his failures might have been in MA, Romney was dealing with a State Legislature that was 85% Democrat, so that all his vetoes would be over-ridden.

If he is elected President in 2012, Romney will have a Republican House, and probably a narrow majority in the Senate which would not be filibuster-proof. Since the Senate Majority Leader decides what gets voted on in the Senate, if Republicans take the majority, Harry Reid can no longer single-handedly block legislation in the Senate.

Romney might have to twist a few arms in the Senate to get past Democrat filibusters, but he could certainly get more done as President than he did as Governor in Mass-confusion. He may not get there as fast as some people might want, but he would lead us in the right direction.

He runs the best campaign. He’s articulate. He’s even-tempered. He has a moral personal life. He looks and acts presidential. He has solid executive experience. He was a successful businessman. He’s center-right–where most of America is. And he’s electable.

remind me again what was that that he signed in 1986, the immigration reform bill, and how many illegal immigrants got amnesty under Reagan? yeah, I thought so, about 1.7 milion… not exactly a very conservative record, is it!

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Whoa, wait there a minute Jimver, Reagan signed that immigration reform bill because the Democrats were going to close the border and they were going to get a handle on immigration once the borders were closed. As usual you can’t believe a Democrat because after Reagan gave amnesty, the Democrats reneged on closing the border. As they would now if the same amnesty proposal were put on the table. Borders closed first, then we’ll talk.

He runs the best campaign. He’s articulate. He’s even-tempered. He has a moral personal life. He looks and acts presidential. He has solid executive experience. He was a successful businessman. He’s center-right–where most of America is. And he’s electable.

I don’t get the Mitt hate.

writeblock on December 29, 2011 at 7:02 PM

You are right. Don’t worry, these deranged Romney-haters are in the small minority, even if you see lots of their comments in places like this. They overestimate their numbers and influence. Anyone with a brain can see that Romney is the best candidate to go up against Obama. Romney has run a brilliant campaign and has been incredibly impressive and steady throughout.

remind me again what was that that he signed in 1986, the immigration reform bill, and how many illegal immigrants got amnesty under Reagan? yeah, I thought so, about 1.7 milion… not exactly a very conservative record, is it!

jimver on December 29, 2011 at 6:02 PM

Whoa, wait there a minute Jimver, Reagan signed that immigration reform bill because the Democrats were going to close the border and they were going to get a handle on immigration once the borders were closed. As usual you can’t believe a Democrat because after Reagan gave amnesty, the Democrats reneged on closing the border. As they would now if the same amnesty proposal were put on the table. Borders closed first, then we’ll talk.

jaimo on December 29, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Reagan later said that was one of the things he most regretted. It was a disaster! No more amnesty, in any way shape or form… now or ever! (yes, Pro-Amnesty Rick Perry, that means you need to go back to TX)

Romney may not win, I would say that Obama is still probably going to win. but Mitt is the best hope we have. any other nominee we put up and it is going to be an easy coast for Obama to another term.

AirForceCane on December 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Think positive! It’s all going to come down to the swing states, many of which elected Republicans by large margins in 2010 statewide elections. If Romney can win over a big chunk of the independents that swung big for Obama in 2008, Obama is history. If anyone in this field is well-positioned for that feat, it’s Romney.

I also hope Romney selects Rubio, who is from a swing state where the RNC Convention is going to be held this year (Tampa Bay)… it would seem to make perfect sense, but we’ll see! ::crosses fingers::

the hate comes from either those who have an innate anti-Mormon bias (I am not Mormon), those who are jealous of Romney’s success, the idiots backing Perry or Palin (!!), or liberal trolls.

and those who have no life living in their parents basement, as evidenced by the number of posts they have day and night on this site.

I honestly believe two of the worst posters (Right Man and AngryEd) are simply liberal trolls planted here to sow dissension and try to harm the GOP. No Republican I have ever known in my lifetime has been as idiotic and hypocritical as these two morons..

thank goodness some other sane posters are joining in. this place is rapidly tiring with some posters only asking ridiculous questions about Romney-

Uh, why don’t you make the same idiotic points about Gingrich or Perry?! no one knows what they would do either, they have both had plenty of moderate positions on immigration, global warming, border control, gardasil, Fannie Mae.

why don’t those who only attack Romney ever mention who they support?! and why don’t they use the same baiting questions about the other candidates?!

Old white rich Mormon CEO of Wall Street Company. Just the man America is clamoring for.

angryed on December 29, 2011 at 6:00 PM

I’m sick of the idea that being “not young” is a bad thing. I’m also sick of the idea that being “white” is a negative. I always hear people talk derisively about certain people with phrases like, “a bunch of old white guys,” as if those are shameful qualities. What if someone said, “ew, it’s just a bunch of young black guys!?” Going along with the white=bad (and anything-but-white/person-of-color=always good) idea is racism against white people!

And denigrating someone over their religion is also low.

I’m also sick of people saying we should envy and hate financially successful people.

These kinds of comments usually come from Obama’s base, which likes to think of itself as enlightened.

Now I see these same types of comments on HotAir. Granted, the people writing these comments don’t appear to be the brightest bulbs on the tree, but, nevertheless, it is disappointing to see.

As long as it’s a crap sandwich I’ll be happy to hand you your due.
E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 29, 2011 at 5:32 PM
Yes, we realize that Romney and Obama are a pair of crap sandwiches. Nice to see you recognize that. Odd that you would still argue with us about how much tastier the first one is than the second.
Aitch748 on December 29, 2011 at 5:40 PM
They know deep down that Romney = McCain. But they’ve so invested in Romney that they can’t let go. They’ve been told for 5-6 years that Romney is the man who will solve all the world’s ills. He is electable. He is moderate. He can walk on water. Like any cult, it’s hard to walk away even when you wake up one day and realize it’s all BS.
angryed on December 29, 2011 at 5:43 PM

I read several of your posts and this one confirmed it. You are utterly disingenuous. You can’t throw around terms like “cult” (unless you’re actually talking about one) without losing all credibility. You lost it ALL.

After giving you the benefit of the doubt I now get it.You are a Demroid TROLL

To the recipients of wages, promises and entitlements given to you by the unions of State and Federal Governments. The somewhat recent claims of teachers and State Unions and the voters in Massachusetts and New Jersey that the Governors are unfair asking for an increase into their own healthcare and pensions was appalling, according to these parasites. Mitt will need to open the books and let the public examine what’s what. Lets examine what the population of Massachusetts claims against Mitt.